RE: Advertisement Interval Vs Timeout

I'll admit right up front that I haven't been
following the subsecond timers draft, feel free to
ignore this question if it's already been discussed.


--- Don Provan <[email protected]> wrote:
> If the master were allowed to send at faster rates,
> more than three advertisements could be sent per
> timeout interval, which is what people experimenting
> with faster timeouts tell us they found was 
> necessary for stability in that environment.

I'm not understanding why people experimenting with
faster timeouts are claiming more Advertisements
are required to insure VRRP stability?  Stability of
the protocol as currently written is not dependent on
the timeout interval it's dependent on the packet loss
rate (link Bit Error Rate (BER) and/or switch or
router packet drops).  Are the fast timeout
experimenters emulating higher BER or non-linerate
capable switches with high packet drop rates?

I agree that the ability to send Advertisements at a
higher rate can make VRRP more robust in LANs with
extremely high BER or congested switches.  I'm just
trying to understand if there's some claim that this
is required just because the timeout is scaled down?


danny




_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp